If your offense scores 24 points in an NFL football game... you should win the game. I think that should happen 100% of the time. If you have an offense that can put up 24 week in and week out, then you should win at least 12 games easily and if you put up 24+ points per game on average, then you're a first place team. My opinion is that the Hawks offense did what needed to be done to win today. If the offense had played that well against SF and Arizona, we'd have won both of those games. So we're seeing progress and a lot of regress on both sides of the ball.

My opinion then is 24 points should win you a game without issue. The end.

Yeah, I think you're right jkitsune. I'll go with your number. That's 4 sustained TD drives in a game. 1 per quarter gives you the 28 points and I'd say that's just about the perfect spot to be. With a really good defense you could get away with 24, but our defense is no longer "really good" unfortunately. I think like you said, 24 in a few of the other games would be plenty and would win for us most weeks. But I think that 28 is spot on.

We're not that far away from it either. A couple of stalled drives and field goals per game are all that is keeping us from being that 28 point a game offense. It's not inconceivable with the offense we have on the field right now.

For a good team, sure, 28 is fair. For a team that supposedly has one of the best defenses in the league, scoring 24 should be enough to win 99% of the games. 12 times we could have stopped drives on third down. Several times on their final drive we failed to get it done. And we didn't hold them to three, we gave up the winning touchdown. That is an issue.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

Seahawk Sailor wrote:For a good team, sure, 28 is fair. For a team that supposedly has one of the best defenses in the league, scoring 24 should be enough to win 99% of the games. 12 times we could have stopped drives on third down. Several times on their final drive we failed to get it done. And we didn't hold them to three, we gave up the winning touchdown. That is an issue.

24 points would have won basically all of our games except this one. That actually seems about right.

I liked my original 24, but I think that year in year out jkitsune's number is better. 28 consistently is what it feels like the Patriots typically put up. Does somebody want to look at the last few Super bowl winners and see what amount of points per game they put up on average for the year? I don't know any good stat sites. I'm not much of a stat guy... more of a guy who watches the ebb and flow and sees football more situationally than statistically at this point in my life. I used to be a total stathead. Now... not so much.

Seahawk Sailor wrote:For a good team, sure, 28 is fair. For a team that supposedly has one of the best defenses in the league, scoring 24 should be enough to win 99% of the games. 12 times we could have stopped drives on third down. Several times on their final drive we failed to get it done. And we didn't hold them to three, we gave up the winning touchdown. That is an issue.

We should of shut the Lions down but failed. The thing that keeps standing out to me is the pressure (non) that we put on Stafford.. Clemmons appears to be chillin now that he got paid and no one else is emerging. You cant make someone on your team a pass rusher specialist. They either have it or they dont. Irvin has the physical tools but I challenge you guys to tell me who else can put pressure on the qb?